The New Criterion Oct 2000

Does race exist?

by Paul R. Gross

The Human Genome Project is on schedule. Its many promised uses, nevertheless, are for the long haul. The New York Times tells us, though, that it has already achieved one invaluable result.

On August 22, Ms. Natalie Angier announced the glad tidings on page one: There is no such thing as race. Her title: “Do Races Differ? Not Really, Genes Show.” Race, therefore, is about to join such other “social constructs” as quarks, atoms, motile sperm, and secondary sex characteristics.

Angier’s article collects opinion-sentences to that effect from two able leaders of the Genome Project—Dr. Craig Venter (the private branch) and Dr. Eric Lander (the public)—and from several others. All deny the biological reality of “race” among humans. Some fragments refer obliquely to Genome Project results. But separately or together, these statements allow no meaningful judgment on the significance of race, even from a geneticist or an anthropologist. The piece does mention in passing “a handful of researchers who continue to insist that there are fundamental differences among the three major races that extend to the brain.”

If, as claimed, races are not biologically significant, then they don’t exist. “Race” means biological difference. (And if races don’t exist, then there aren’t “three major races.”) If a mere “handful of researchers . . . continue to insist” that race means something biological, then the rest do not. So they regard all people as siblings who start life with the same endowment, including brains. Any differences we see or measure are then trivial or social. That is the Times’s message. It doesn’t work for anyone who knows what “race” means in science, and what the genetic data show.

Forty years ago, the distinguished evolutionist Ernst Mayr discarded “typological” notions from contemporary biological systematics. The difference was (and still is) important because of the then-stubborn remnants of idealism in biology and because advances in genetics had rendered the timeworn notion of fixed, racial “types” not even wrong, just irrelevant. In his 1959 essay “Typological Versus Population Thinking,” Mayr wrote:

"Essentially . . . [the typological idea of “race”] asserts that every representative of a race conforms to the type and is separated from the representatives of any other race by a distinct gap. The populationist also recognizes races but in totally different terms. Race for him is based on the simple fact that no two individuals are the same in sexually reproducing organisms and that consequently no two aggregates of individuals can be the same. If the average difference between two groups of individuals is sufficiently great to be recognizable on sight, we refer to such groups of individuals as different races. Race, thus described, is a universal phenomenon of nature occurring not only in man but in two thirds of all species of animals and plants."

That is what biological “race” means—except, in recent decades, for humanity. Many argue, by whatever means come to hand, that while there are races (or “varieties,” or “demes,” or “breeding groups”) in other species, humanity has none, that group differences are either trivial or sociocultural. This accelerating assault upon what seems obvious raises two broad questions. First, why the current fussing over “race” in humans? And why drag in “the brain”? Second, what evidence—from the Genome Project or otherwise—supports this radical claim? (It is radical; people can distinguish, sometimes imperfectly, at least those “three major” human groups—African, Asian, Caucasian.)

Race is a battleground of politics. So, today, is science, with enemies at both ends of the political spectrum. Therefore, like the nexus religion/science, race/science is fertile ground for politics and prejudice, and everybody has politics and prejudice. Now, the surest way to extinguish flare-ups of race/science is to deny that there is any science in “race” and to assert that group differences are social (and politically malleable). Of course, most people think the opposite, intuitively. Yet we are familiar with counterintuitive science that is true. So there being “no biological reality” in race is a possibility. Certainly it is useful and comforting for respectable people, including scientists—they depend upon public good will and most have currently respectable politics. And the brain? That’s the touchiest of all race/science issues! It is considered crude to say that one race seems to have innate advantages in certain sports, but one does think it. But it is indecent, today, even to think of innate cognitive differences, however small, among races. That can cost you friends or your job.

What about evidence? It has long been clear that the gross genetic makeup (as DNA sequence) of humans and, say, chimpanzees differs hardly at all. A few percent at most. Nobody doubts that this makes a huge biological difference, or that the difference depends upon scores of genes. But we and chimps are different species. Within a species, DNA differences overall are even smaller, race to race. For the kinds of genes studied until recently population-wide (for example, blood groups), within-group gene variability can be greater than between groups. None of this means that varieties are not biologically different. A small subset of genes, relative to the multiple tens of thousands in a genome, can make enormous differences in the functioning body (the phenotype). That has been the salient outcome of developmental genetics. “Innate” characteristics can be and some are known to be encoded in an insignificant fraction of the genome. Every competent developmentalist knows this.

For the Human Genome Project, turning its splendid accomplishment into specific gene functions, and then into phenotypes, is in the future. Nothing new has happened —yet—to relegate group-related biological traits to the trash heap. We already know some such traits. What has been reinforced is what we’ve known for decades: real differences among the human varieties float upon an ocean of physiological (hence genetic) uniformity. But that’s just what makes us all human.

-----------------------

From The New Criterion Vol. 19, No. 2, October 2000 ©2000 The New Criterion

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 03, 2001

Answers

Ah, what tangled webs we weave.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 03, 2001.

Lars:

(It is radical; people can distinguish, sometimes imperfectly, at least those “three major” human groups—African, Asian, Caucasian.)

An interesting subject and worth discussing, but these people can't even get the major human groups right. Obviously, they aren't familar with the literature.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 03, 2001.

In the popular sense of race (meaning the 18th century division of humanity into a few big, racial types, such as caucasian, negro, oriental) race is just a social fiction used to create and magnify divisions more than to describe them. Imagine how powerful negro "blood" must be, if having even 1/16th of ancestry counted as negro is enough to make you one too! That is a social convention, not biology.

Modern biology does use the term "race", but a race requires a fairly settled and definable breeding population with little or no intermixture with outside populations. By that definition, something like 25 racial groups seem to have identified. These are probably only a few of the races that have existed since humans emerged from (most likely) Africa about 100,000 years ago. These temporarily inbreeding groups arise because of natural barriers to travel, such as oceans, mountains and deserts. Things change. Groups migrate. Races appear, merge and disappear as migration dictates.

However, since humans have proved to be progressively more and more mobile creatures in the past 2000 years, the racial characteristics of all of these 25 residual "races" have been progressively breaking down in modern times. One of the very first thing that happens when two human groups meet is... breeding. That's one of the things humans excel at.

But that is one of the characeristics of races, seen strictly from a biological point of view. Either they stay isolated and become a new species, or they eventually merge back into the larger breeding population of the species. They don't stay static.

At least that's how I understand the science, as it stands today.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 03, 2001.

Z--

You seem to be saying that there are "races". Otherwise, why quibble over what we call what does not exist?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 04, 2001.

Wednesday May 2 6:33 PM ET

Study: Drug Works Less for Blacks

By STEPHANIE NANO, Associated Press Writer

New research into puzzling racial differences in medicine found that one widely prescribed heart drug works relatively poorly in blacks, while another such drug is just as effective in blacks as it is in people of other races.

The two drugs, an ACE inhibitor and a beta blocker, are standard treatment for heart failure, a condition in which the heart is weak and cannot pump enough blood. Previous studies suggested that blacks get less benefit from these drugs, though the reasons are not clear.

An estimated 4.8 million Americans have congestive heart failure, about 25 percent more blacks than whites.

In a report in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine (news - web sites), researchers said the beta blocker Coreg, also known as carvedilol, was equally effective in reducing the risk of death and hospitalization in blacks and non-blacks with chronic heart failure. The non-black group included people of European, Asian and American Indian descent.

Coreg lowered the risk of death or hospitalization by 48 percent among black patients, and 30 percent among non-blacks. The researchers said that when other factors were taken into account, there was no difference between the two groups.

``The big question has been all along, does anything work?'' said one of the researchers, Dr. Clyde W. Yancy of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. ``I think we can not only say, yes, something does work, but we can say it works in a very striking way and is equally similar.''

A second report looked at the ACE inhibitor Vasotec, or enalapril. The researchers found the drug reduced the risk of hospitalization 44 percent among whites with damage to their left ventricles. There was no significant reduction among similar black patients. The study matched 800 black patients with 1,196 white patients.

The lead researcher, Dr. Derek V. Exner of the University of Calgary, said blacks should not stop taking the drug but may need a higher dose.

``Based on the information we have, these drugs should still be used as standard treatment for heart failure,'' Exner said.

Yancy noted that the 217 blacks and 877 non-blacks in the Coreg study were also taking an ACE inhibitor. The combination, Yancy said, appears to be very effective treatment for heart failure in black patients with mild to moderate disease.

In both studies, researchers analyzed data from previous tests of the drugs. The study of Coreg was sponsored by its makers, SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals and Roche Laboratories, and some of the researchers have been consultants to or employed by Glaxo SmithKline.

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Alastair J.J. Wood of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine said the reports will be a ``great help to physicians in their attempt to choose the best therapy for heart failure in patients of different races.''

-- (yes@race.does.exist), May 04, 2001.

I love the emporer's new duds.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), May 04, 2001.

Lars:

In biology, race has a specific meaning. That is not what we are talking about here.

Do races exist? Sure they do. That is because it is a word that humans have made up and have said has meaning. It is only valid when it is useful. Over the centuries race has been defined in different ways. These include such things as color, place of origin, eye shape, head shape, hair shape, ethnic group, etc. It usually had a use. That use was generally to denigrate the "others".

Presently, the identification of genetic subgroups can be useful in medical treatment [race is not used because the term race carries too much baggage from previous definitions of race and because medical differences of importance are often limited to a subgroup of what was defined as a race in the past].

Based on the present evidence, there appears to be more genetic diversity amongst the people in sub-Saharan Africa than amongst such Africans and all of the rest of humanity. We will learn more in the future and the facts will probably change. We will need to wait and see.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 04, 2001.

Lacking any conclusive evidence, it seems the ignorant will always be happy to draw conclusions based on their own stupidity. I don't suppose you have any data to support your theories, do you Z? Nope, didn't think so.

-- (Z another @ wannabe. scientist), May 04, 2001.

Sure, I do, but it is unlikely that you have access to the journals. If you had been here very long [I started on the original board at the beginning] you would know that I work in molecular genetics. I do not work in human genetics; therefore, I know what I read in the literature and hear at seminars. This is an evolving area of study. I consider any evidence that is different than my current impressions; if it is documented and in peer reviewed journals.

Your PhD was in what field? I didn't catch that. How many years of research experience do you have in industry and the academic world? How many patents do you have? You haven't told me why I shouldn't ignore anything that you say.

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 04, 2001.

Based on the present evidence, there appears to be more genetic diversity amongst the people in sub-Saharan Africa than amongst such Africans and all of the rest of humanity. We will learn more in the future and the facts will probably change. We will need to wait and see.

I enjoy following the Human Genome Project, and this is exactly what I've read.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 04, 2001.

No data, eh? LOL!

Just as I thought, another junk science bullshit promoter!

-- (Z is @ total. fraud), May 05, 2001.

Mr. Z is a fraud,

Not only are you not providing data, you aren't even providing an alternative to Z that you believe to be correct. By your own yardstick, doesn't this make you a fraud and a promoter of blank ignorance?

You apparently have not grasped that around here you can't just take the negative stance. You have to have something of substance to say in favor of your own point of view. You must put it out there on the line and let it get knocked around, too. But that takes some courage and conviction. So far, you show neither.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 05, 2001.